- Mod of !anarchism@slrpnk.net posts a great Greta Thunberg quote, but then tries to use it to justify not voting in the upcoming US election
- Multiple people point out that’s very clearly not what she meant
- Removed by mod Removed by mod Removed by mod Removed by mod
Using your mod powers to decide who is allowed and not allowed to speak is not very anarchist of you, @mambabasa@slrpnk.net
I’m confused. Do you now think choosing the shitty option is justifiable or not?
It’s an understandable choice. It’s a choice stemming from lack of agency and power. Choosing to defend the lesser evil and justify the evil is a different. It is a more powerful, wholly conscious choice. THAT is itself evil. You should be unhappy and outraged that you have both choice but to choose evil, to choose genocide. Yet these people, they are not. Rather, they want to wholly support the program of Harris, wilfully ignoring or downplaying that this program is evil and genocidal. That is providing ideological cover for genocide, and that is never justified.
I don’t think you really are willing to understand that most people are viewing that election as a hostage situation. I’m Canadian. It’s plain as day. Forced participation is not consent, and you should know that!
You’re correct! But defending Harris and her program is a different choice. You can vote, but you don’t need to CHOOSE to defend Harris, you don’t need to CHOOSE to defend her program, you don’t need to CHOOSE to provide ideological cover for genocide. Vote if you want, but defending Harris is a different choice from voting. And doing this in an anarchist space? Why in our space? Can’t you do that in the hundreds of other Lemmy communities? Don’t use our space to soapbox. Do the ideological cover for genocide elsewhere, thank you very much.
I did not do that. I said this:
IDGAF about Harris. Abstaining favors the choice that represents an existential threat for MORE people. Recommending martyrdom instead of reducing losses makes you a saboteur for anarchism. Stop it. Accept that people have a risk profile that won’t tolerate uncompromising principles. We need people to participate, rejecting moderate allies is a bad choice.
I have never argued for abstention. Stop putting words in my mouth. And do you honestly think, I, a non-American in not-America, can affect the most influential election in the world? Get over yourself. I know people aren’t listening to me. But anarchists must say what only anarchists can say.
You do have an insignificant effect on the world. It’s not nothing. People read your words and hear you, and form opinions.
Decrying the choice of paying the ransom is arguing for abstention.
No, you’re just making shit up. People who already decided to vote for Harris won’t change their minds at a few memes. That’s not how anything works. You’re ascribing meaning to actions that simply cannot represent those meanings. Memes aren’t an abstention campaign.
It’s not a few memes. It’s an aggregate that you are contributing to. You are aware that there are state actors that are attempting to influence the US election, and your post is in line with the messaging from those campaigns.
And then you are demanding no assenting opinions.
Isn’t “we lack agency” the exact argument you removed? Casting others in either black or white is unnecessarily flaming and often used by power-grabbers to divide the electorate and drum up perfervid support. Nobody’s wholly supporting Harris or supporting her stance on the war here. I saw the thread before it was removed.
Something Awful forums apparently have some sort of sitewide account ban for strawmanning, saying that someone said something which clearly isn’t what they said, so you can get upset at them about the thing they didn’t say. The longer I stay on Lemmy, the more I think that kind of rule is a great idea.
That sounds a bit too extreme if it’s a one-strike
I’m not sure if it’s a permaban. Apparently their system is that accounts cost $10 for the lifetime of the account, but you can’t get out of line in certain ways, strawmanning being one of them, or you might get a temp ban or lose your account entirely and have to pay another $10.
I don’t know that much about it but I think it sounds great. I don’t know how you could ever bring that energy to Lemmy, but it sounds a lot better than the “let’s invite all the mysterious new accounts with strong opinions about the Democrats to come and play as hard as they want, oh also we ban because today you disagreed with a mod” philosophy.
With that hypothetical system, who would be in charge of deciding the strawmanning? Seems hard to implement in a federated system
The wider concept, where they put actuality to the idea that every account on the network is a privilege and if you’re a jerk there’s a real penalty, I don’t think you could do on Lemmy. It’s just not the culture here.
I think it would be possible for one community to have a rule that if you pretend someone else said something they clearly didn’t say, it’s a temp ban. It would be difficult for a certain crop of user accounts to deal with, but I think those are exactly the ones that aren’t adding anything but suffering to the conversation, so nothing would be lost by booting them until they learned. I think it would be a good idea. Case in point, this fucking guy. I’ve given up trying to explain to him that I don’t want genocide any more than he claims not to, and I don’t even really like Kamala Harris, I just mostly think Trump in charge of the US is a biblical horror, and I want to avoid it. Somehow that keeps turning into that I love Kamala Harris and defend every part of her platform. I don’t even know why I’ve invested so much keyboard time into this conversation, other than the idea of someone promoting don’t-vote-ism is really alarming to me, and I want to say something when I see it.
No it wasn’t. They were justifying and defending Harris and defending voting for Harris. Anti-anarchists don’t get to use anarchist spaces to push anti-anarchist talking points. They have literally almost every other Lemmy instance to push their voting agenda, why should they use ours?
How were they justifying Harris’s genocide policies? Isn’t defending voting for Harris defending the shitty choice?
Defending the shitty choice is defending the program of your vote. You can vote for the lesser evil, but do you need to defend the evil? Do you need to justify the evil? No. Just vote. You don’t need to defend or justify evil.
Then how may I explain that voting for the lesser evil is the best course of action in my state’s scenario? And again, how were they justifying Harris’s genocide policies?
Good luck, lol. I’m out.
Have you looked into vote swapping programs? If you want to vote principally yet remain tactical, look into that. But don’t go around providing ideological cover for genocide.
Based on your argument, one cannot justify the person in the swing state voting for Harris? And again, how were they defending Harris’s genocide policies?
edit:fixed think-o lol, safe→swing